He got Fortunato drunk, (Montresor states this when he says "Drink," I said, presenting him the wine”), then lured him into the catacombs to where he was going to trap him, leaving him there to starve. In conclusion, Montresor should be sentenced to death because he committed a severe crime that hurt a family and friends. There is no other ruly way to punish him rather than killing him. He should receive capital punishment and he should not be allowed to live, because then there is no for sure way to tell if he will murder another person or
The judge declares the “Murder in the first degree—premeditated homicide—is the most serious charge tried in our criminal courts. One man is dead. The life of another is at stake. If there is a reasonable doubt in your minds as to the guilt of the accused … then you must declare him not guilty. If, however, there is no reasonable doubt, then he must be found guilty.
Anthony Hinton spoke to us about his time on death row, and the events leading up to arrest, conviction, and being exonerated. He was there to inform us on his experience and the injustice that can come with the death penalty. This eventually leads to him trying to persuade the audience to take action to get rid of the death penalty. As a strong believer of the death penalty, Hinton’s
The newsman states that he never killed four people in cold blood, to which the prosecutor replies that “hanging the bastard” is “pretty goddamn cold-blooded too” (Capote 306). In this statement, the prosecutor expresses his belief that it is not morally correct to hang a murderer who has had such a traumatic past without testing for any sign of mental illness or
I saw the jury sitting at a long table. “Good morning,” I said nervously. “Today I am here to speak with you about the current situation of the suspect’s mental health. The suspect has had violent outbursts, and even believed hallucination. I believe that this man is not well.
Homicides are unlike many others, since one’s intentions are discrete as soon as they have a reason to murder. Threatened obligations are innumerable due to the character's personality and their way of thinking into certain circumstances, although a distinct detail can affect the situation. When little to none consequences have any impact to the “murderer” who caused victim's injury, or death, they are responsible regardless of what their intentions are. For instance, a distressed officer, U.S. Marshal Edward Mars, pleaded to end his miserable life due to the pain he was suffering from the shrapnel. Everyone in the camp suggests the cruel deed.
The character shows some of his masonry skills when he uses them to build a wall over Fortunato, he also shows other skills by plotting out a murder during an event where there are many people out. At the end of the story Montresor states “Against the new masonry I reerected the old rampart of bones. For the half of a century no mortal has disturbed them. ”(Poe, 6).This shows Montresor had plotted it all and has only ever told one other person of the act who is also another carrying the same name of him .
Georgie Milton did something not many people have the guts to do, he took the life of his best friend to save him from the torture that awaited him, but, he took the life of another man and he took this life with the intention of murder. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, there is no difference between euthanasia and murder; and to this indictment, George Milton has pleaded not guilty. If I am to prove him otherwise, you must find him so. Lennie Small has been described to us as a caring giant. He had no bad intentions; and it is fair to say that our witnesses have provided us with sufficient evidence to support my argument.
Montresor states, “I continued , as was my in to smile in his face and he did not perceive that my smile now was at the thought of his immolation” (Poe 1). Montresor devises an intricate and well thought out plan to murder someone he considers a friend, he highlights the evil of humanity when the thought of killing Fortunato brings a smile to his face.
A group of juror comprising of 12 men from diverse backgrounds began their early deliberations with 11 of ‘guilty’ and 1 of ‘not guilty’ verdicts. Juror 8 portrayed himself as a charismatic and high self-confident architect. Initially, Juror 1 who played the foreman positioned himself as self-appointed leader of the team in which has led his authority to be challenged as his leadership style lacked in drive and weak. In the contrary, Juror 8 is seen as the emergent leader considering his openness to probing conversations while remaining calm. Implying this openness to the present, it has become crucial that a good decision relies on knowledge, experience, thorough analysis and most importantly critical thinking.
He provided a voluntary statement and confessed to the third murder. He was indicted by the State of Florida for kidnapping and murder and was appointed an experienced criminal attorney to represent him. As he was pursing pretrial motions and discovery for the respondent’s defense, the attorney learned he confessed to the first
Juror Eight’s passionate opinion about the defendant’s innocence helps persuade the other jurors to change their view on the matter. The defendant faces the death penalty if the jury votes him guilty for the first degree murder of his father. Immediately after the first half of the trial the jury converges in the conference room and takes their first vote. The main protagonist, Juror Eight, becomes clear when the results of the first vote are told to be eleven to one in favor of guilty.
The script introduces the viewers to the typical behavior and the state of mind of these jurors, who surprisingly turn out to be the last to change their opinions from “guilty” to “not guilty”. Juror#3 the frustrated father whose personal conflicts and experiences influence his view of the accused’s crime is very desperate to make it clear that his mind is already made up before the deliberations even start. Similar